Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sv: [OM] OM=Japanese Leica???

Subject: Re: Sv: [OM] OM=Japanese Leica???
From: Motor Sport Visions Photography <msvphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:35:25 -0800
Cc: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In a message dated 2/9/2000 Skip Williams wrote:

> I understand your issue and argument on Olympus' strategy, but I'm not
> convinced.  I want to see some hard facts on this whole issue before I'll
> turn over and yield.  I'm sure there are more issues than I'm aware of
> regarding lenses for Digital and Film, but I haven't seen the one that
> describes why existing, state-of-the-art lenses won't produce optimal
> results on a CCD.

I defer this to the EE and Optical Engineer types. I would like to hear
some hard facts too. In my life outside photography I am an electronic
technician. Among the things I am trained to work on are video
cameras...since before the days CCD imagers were used in them. I admit I
only know a little about the design of imagers, but I do know that the
individual RGB "buckets" are not in exactly the same physical location.
Think about the video world. All RGB. All red, green and blue dots next
to one another, _not_ stacked on top of each other (like emulsion layers
of film are). This is why it kinda makes sense to me that maybe there
_could be_ optical optimization differences between film and digital
lenses. No doubt someone more experienced than I can weigh in with
better information. My take is that Apochromatic lenses bring all colors
of light to the same location at the same time and that is the ideal for
film. Perhaps there is a better way for getting the individual primary
colors to land on their respective buckets? Hence the optimized for
digital optics thing. I can buy it...but I am also happy to be proven
wrong.

> I might buy the argument that the lens flange to film distance of OM-System
> lenses is not easily compatible with their digital camera architecture.  It
> might be a big deal to adapt the older lenses to the new body size and
> configuration.

Actually, to me, that arguement is weaker than the technical arguement
of the difference between CCD imagers and film. If it works for others,
why not for Olympus? They all source their CCD imagers from the same
vendors. I am guessing that with all their digital imaging expertise in
the medical arena that Olympus may well be one of the industry leaders
in this. They sure do seem to get the high end consumer digital cameras
right...the best IMO. Now, up the pixel count (ten-fold) and give us OM
lens capability! ;-) 

> But until proven otherwise, I'm staying up on my flagpole.  I'll take my
> stand that this is Marketing driving a current product line at the expense
> of a dead product line.    That's not a bad business decision, if I'm
> right; but they should have a better argument than the one relayed to us at
> PMA.

Marketing people never seem to give good in-depth technical
explainations (nomex donned).
 
> Skip-I'm-a-dinosaur-and-proud-of-it Williams

Yup, me too. Look at "Racer" magazine and look at the amount of (very
good) digital work published. I still shoot film and plan to for the
forseeable future. Then again, I (proudly) still use an Olympus and that
alone is about as "dinosaur" as it gets in the type of work I do.

Mike Veglia
Motor Sports Visions Photography
www.motorsportvisions.com

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz